Unbelievable Radio Program with Abdullah al-Andalusi

Well, good afternoon and welcome, and a really fascinating topic for you this afternoon.

In fact, it's been a long, long time, really, since we did this in a Muslim -Christian context. The Trinity, does belief in the

Trinity lead to polytheism, is basically what we're talking about. Does it necessitate polytheism?

It's, if you like, been one of the paradoxes of the Christian faith for millennia, the idea that God exists as three in one, one in three.

And here to help us understand that from a Christian perspective is James White. James is the

Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in the United States. It has a wide brief, really, in terms of Christian apologetics.

James debates many different types of people, but has been over here in the UK debating Muslims for the last week or so, and will be doing quite a high -profile debate with Shabbir Ali.

That's taking place on Monday 17th November from 7 .30pm, and it's going to be at Twineholme Baptist Church.

Am I pronouncing that correctly, James? Or maybe you're not the best person to ask. You're asking a person from Arizona how to pronounce a

British word, yes. It's either Twineholme or Twinholme Baptist Church. It's in Fulham Cross, and you can get there on Monday from 7 .30pm

to listen and to, well, witness that debate. So I do encourage you to get along there if you'd be interested in that.

Thank you for coming on this afternoon, James. Tell us a little bit about yourself.

You obviously live out, as you say, in Phoenix, Arizona. You must be enjoying our

British weather. I am actually enjoying the British weather. We have about 360 days of sunshine in Arizona.

We've seen 50 degrees in the shade there, which is 122 for us, and so it's a little bit different than here in London.

But I'm an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I'm an adjunct professor at the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

I teach, have taught Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, church history issues along those lines, and especially in apologetics.

But since 1983, 25 years now, I've been the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which is a Christian apologetics organization, and we do engage in a wide variety of apologetic interactions.

I've written over 20 books on a number of subjects, including the doctrine of the

Trinity, and also textual critical issues. A book that I wrote against the

King James Only controversy has been used as a textbook in the U .S. for quite some time now, and so that's really where a lot of my interest lies, is in the original languages and the texts in the

New Testament and the Old Testament. Well, it's great to have you with us, and I'm sure you would be fascinated on all kinds of subjects, not just the

Trinity, but that obviously is what we'll be looking at today. And to my mind, probably, when

I meet Muslims, that's probably one of the first things that they will bring up as regards to why they don't see

Christianity as coherent or believable. So it's an important one to address in many ways, isn't it,

James? Well, it is, and for not only the apologetic reason of an encounter with Islam or any of the other world religions, but also for the fact that I think that especially evangelicalism has been impoverished as our people have become less and less familiar with their own faith, and especially with the doctrine of the

Trinity. Christianity does not present a God that we worship that we don't know. In fact, the biblical command is that we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our

Lord Jesus Christ. And so I think that our worship is impoverished when we do not understand what the

Bible reveals about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, what that means to our worship.

Even the Gospel itself, I believe, is a Trinitarian Gospel. It finds its origination in God the Father, and it is the

Son who brings about the very means by which the Gospel can take place, that is, that transaction upon the cross.

It's the Spirit that comes and makes that Gospel come alive. So it's a Trinitarian religion all the way through, and so when we have people who don't understand it for themselves, that impacts their life.

And then of course, if you don't understand for yourself, you're certainly going to struggle to try to explain it to someone else. Well, we're going to be looking into this with the help of Abdullah Al -Yusufi.

Abdullah, your first time on the program as well, so welcome along to the program. Pleasure to be here. Great to have you. Now, you obviously are

Muslim, and tell us a little bit about yourself. Have you always seen yourself as a

Muslim, and how did you arrive at this place you are now of engaging in these kinds of debates, etc.?

Well, I haven't always been a Muslim. I used to be a Christian, Church of England Christian.

Really? Up until I was a teenager. And I chose Islam after a very long and arduous search for the truth.

And I analyzed every religion that you can think of, Jainism, Shintoism, even

Rastafarianism, every kind of religion, regardless of where it came from, its background, or whether it's culturally outside what

I would recognize. I researched all these different religions, and Islam was last on my list, because I didn't think that Islam would have anything interesting to say about the truth of the world, and the universe, and existence.

And then I came upon the laws, and the rules, and the understandings, and the theology of Islam, and it very much agreed with my rational search, and so on.

So, I became Muslim after that point. And then after this, I kind of looked into understanding more about Islam, understanding more about the world, not just religions, but also politics, also sociology, and psychology of human beings, and so on, to deepen my understanding about the human existence on earth, and about how we interact, and so on, so forth.

And why is it that many people around the world, they have common phenomenons that they experience, like spiritual experience, and so on, whichever religion you're from.

So, I wanted to kind of research everything to get a kind of a bigger world picture, than just make a narrow world view from a particular religion, or a particular viewpoint, and so on.

And that's basically what led me to discussing theology. Although, my main lines of social activity, or political activity, is along the lines of,

I debate most with secularists, I do social work with Muslim youths, and I do political work in terms of trying to work for and revive the kind of Islamic system in the

Middle East, and so on. And to bring, you know, for justice, and so on. Obviously, I raise causes of injustice around the world, both

Muslim and non -Muslim. So, these are the kind of activities that I'm engaged in, and so on.

And this, I mean, I don't usually deal with philological discussions, but because I've, obviously,

I researched it when I was choosing religions, and I researched it when I was investigating Islam, and comparative religion,

I think it's kind of like a bit of a pastime I can engage in now and again. Well, thank you so much for being with us, and I know that you're a regular, as it were, on YouTube.

I've seen a couple of your tapes there, and if you want to see Abdullah in action, go to youtube .com

forward slash mujtahid2006, that's mujtahid2006.

James White, you can visit his website at aomin .org, so a -o -m -i -n .org.

So, those are our guests on the program today. Do join us again in just a couple of minutes' time, and we're going to get into this discussion on the

Trinity. It is a central part of Christian doctrine, but can Christians defend it, and does it make sense?

Those are the kind of questions that Abdullah's going to be asking of James White, our Christian apologist on the program today.

So, do hope you can join us again in a couple of minutes' time. Welcome back.

Yes, we're talking about the Trinity this afternoon, and it is often something that I think

Christians probably do find hard to express to those who ask them about it, and James White, well, his job, really, is making clear things that sometimes seem to be mysterious in many ways, and he's going to be explaining what he believes are the

Biblical, if you like, explanations for the Trinity, why Christians can and should be confident in a belief in a triune

God. Well, all this talk we'll find out from Abdullah al -Bukhari this afternoon is mystifying to Muslims, and we'll find out why he believes that Christians have to believe in a polytheist

God if they believe in this Trinity. That's the question we're asking this afternoon. Does belief in the

Trinity lead necessarily to polytheism? That's the topic of the show this afternoon.

Do hope you can stay with us through till four o 'clock this afternoon, and don't forget you can find us online at www .premier

.org .uk forward slash unbelievable. Lots of other interesting debates between Muslims and Christians in our archive there.

Right, gentlemen, so let's launch into this. I'll start with you, Abdullah. I mean, you said you were searching as a young person.

Was, as it were, the reason you're leaving at least a sort of childhood sort of embrace of Christianity, was one of the reasons this

Trinity issue? Did that come up in your sort of searchings, as it were? Well, I mean, as a young boy, growing up to being a teenager,

I don't think, and I think for all the Christians around me, we didn't really have this concept of Trinity as Jesus being

God, because for a child, you grow up and you see God, you know, God the

Father, and you say, you know, our Father who art in Heaven, and you say the Lord's Prayer, and then you see Jesus. So as a child, there are two concepts.

There is Jesus and then there is the Father. And so when you pray, you're praying to the

Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father. And when we saw the title of the Son of God, we understood that as a kind of metaphorical title of praise.

So, but it wasn't specifically the Trinity per se that actually got me out of Christianity, because I didn't think I understood the

Trinity fully at that point. But rather it was that I saw that Christianity, in my view, lacked any comprehensive system by which human beings can be organized, politics, economics, all these things that we live on earth, and if our purpose in life, obviously, is to worship

God, then every aspect of our life should be, should revolve around this purpose. And the thing that attracted me to Islam was that it's very comprehensive, and it deals with all these subjects on a political, social, and private sphere.

So that was the main allure of Islam. But again, that wasn't the first thing that came to my mind initially, because I went through a whole bunch of different religions

I was researching. But when I was researching different religions, it brought interesting questions, such as, when

I looked at Hinduism, or I even looked at ancient Greek mythology, how do I know that there is no multiple gods?

There are no multiple gods. There are no, you know, polytheism is not the existence of the divine, it's polytheism.

How do I know this for sure? And so I had to encounter these ideas at that stage. When I contemplated it,

I realized, obviously, that if there is obviously more than one God, then there's more than one infinite being, and the question would arise as to which one has more power than the other, and so on.

They would equal each other out, and then they would basically limit each other, and then how can God be unlimited? And plus, if there's like 10, 20, or 100 gods, or 100 beings, then who created them in its plurality?

Why is it that it was 10, or 20, why not 21, or 30, or 100? So do you actually regard

Christianity not as being a monotheistic faith, in that sense? If the

Trinity, if we believe in this Trinity, do you regard that as, in actual fact, Christianity is a polytheistic faith?

It depends how you define Christianity. I mean, if I was to say that it's a polytheistic faith, a lot of Unitarian Christians would become very upset with me, and rightly so, because they don't believe in the

Trinity, but they affirm that they are Christian. Obviously, historical scholars, history scholars have affirmed that some early

Christians were Unitarian, up until within one generation after Jesus, for Ebionites, and Nazarenes, and so on and so forth.

Now, I'm not going to debate as to, obviously, which doctrine is more closer in history to Jesus or not, but rather I want to focus on the actual idea, and I think that although the

Trinitarian Christians, who call themselves monotheists, believe in one God, I think that it's really a kind of a polytheism, but masquerading as monotheism, because they try to reconcile the one

God, but then they want to include Jesus and the Holy Spirit in this. James, in many ways,

Islam, the birth of Islam, through Prophet Muhammad, was in response to these, what he saw as polytheistic beliefs, wasn't it?

In Mecca, he saw polytheism both in, as it were, pagan religions and in this nascent

Christian religion, and said, this is taking us away from the worship of the one true God, and hence, in many ways, it is the

Trinity, if you like, that is partially accountable, in some ways, for the growth of Islam from the very outset.

Well, there's a lot of question as to exactly what Muhammad's knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity was, what kind of Christians he had encountered.

There's a lot of question as to did he only encounter Nestorian Christians, or even

Christians who had any knowledge whatsoever of the doctrine itself, or had any solid knowledge. It's hard to say, but I think it's important to emphasize that the reason that I believe in the doctrine of the

Trinity is because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe, as Jesus said, that the

Scriptures cannot be broken, as Paul said, that all Scripture is theanoustos, it is God breathed, or as Peter put it, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the

Holy Spirit. And so, when I read those Scriptures, I see three foundational truths that are clearly presented in those texts.

First of all, there is only one true God. In the Old Testament, the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh, which we slaughter in English as Jehovah, but Yahweh is the one true

God, he is the creator of all things, he owes his existence to none, he is timeless, there is nothing that exists outside of his will.

And yet, that same name, when we come in the New Testament, though the Greek New Testament does not contain the name

Yahweh, those texts that talk about him are applied to three persons, the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so, we have biblical monotheism, there is only one true

God, all the gods, the peoples are idols, Psalm 96 .5. Before me there is no God formed, there should be none after me,

Isaiah 43 .10. But then we have the introduction in the New Testament of these three divine persons, clearly distinguished from one another, the

Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit. In John 14, Jesus refers to the

Father, he talks about the love that exists between he and the Father. In John 17, he says he shared glory with the

Father before creation itself came into existence. And then he speaks about sending another comforter, the

Holy Spirit, who proceeds forth from the Father. So we have these three persons, and then they are described as possessing the attributes and nature of God.

The Father, clearly so. The Son is described as the Creator. He is described as having eternal existence in John 1 .1.

He is described as God in numerous passages. Thomas, after the resurrection, when he sees

Jesus, cries out to him. The text cannot be taken in any other way other than saying, my

Lord and my God, to Jesus. Jesus does not rebuke him, he accepts this as a confession of faith. And then we have the

Spirit, when Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Spirit of God. You have not lied to men, but to God.

He is identified as God. He gives the gifts to the church as he wills, so he is personal in 1

Corinthians 12. And so we have these three persons. But then we have the question, well, could it be that we are somehow violating our

Old Testament monotheism? No. Every person that writes in the New Testament was a monotheistic

Jew, would say the Shema every morning from Deuteronomy 6 .4, here of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

And so we have the equality of those persons presented to us in Scripture. Not identity, because clearly the

Scriptures differentiate between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It was not the Father who became flesh, it was the

Son. It is not the Son or the Father who indwells us now, they instead have sent the

Holy Spirit, and by means of that Spirit indwell believers. And so you have these three foundations, absolute biblical monotheism, the teaching of the existence of three divine persons, and then the equality of those persons, which is the reason why if you accept

Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for the church, and Tota Scriptura, all of Scripture, you are forced to the doctrine of the

Trinity by taking all that information together. Do you see the Trinity as something that we only really find though in the

New Testament, or do you believe it exists in the Old Testament, the concept? The doctrine of the Trinity is actually revealed in the coming of the

Son in flesh, and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and all of that takes place between Malachi and Matthew.

The New Testament then becomes the record of that revelation of the Trinity. Each of the writers of the

New Testament is an experiential Trinitarian. Think of someone like Peter. Peter stands upon the

Mount of Transfiguration. He sees Jesus transfigured, he sees the glory of Christ, he hears the

Father speaking from Heaven, he is now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He is an experiential Trinitarian, and that is why the language of the

New Testament is soaked in Trinitarian terminology. Why it is so easy, for example, for the

New Testament writers to speak of the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ in the same passage, going back and forth between the two, because there is no conflict in their understanding.

And so the revelation, is it prophesied in the Old Testament? I believe it clearly is.

In Isaiah chapter 9, verse 6, we have this prophecy of this One who is to come, and there we are told that a child will be born to us, and the term born there is the standard term in the

Hebrew language for natural birth of a child, but then it says a son will be given to us, the government will be upon our shoulders, in English it shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Who is this

One who is to come? That such exalted language could be used of Him that is only used of Yahweh.

So, while I don't think that the Old Testament is quote -unquote Trinitarian in that sense, because the revelation hasn't taken place, the prophecies of that coming

One, Psalm 2, speaks of One that we are to kiss the Son lest He be angry, He rules over the nations.

And so we can see in this fulfillment in the New Testament that the One who is to come is not merely just a prophet, but is in fact divine knowledge.

Abdullah. I mean, I would say, my comment to that is I find it highly conspicuous that the whole of the

Old Testament, or the belief of the Jews in Judaism, there's no revelation of the issue of Trinity.

Now, regardless of the Christian interpretation of the New Testament, which we can go into, it doesn't really matter what interpretation you have.

The actual doctrine itself, when you think about it rationally, why is it that if we are required to believe in a doctrine which the

Jews didn't know about for thousands of years in the Old Testament, why did the

New Testament have this revelation and so on, which itself is disputed among different Christian factions, and so on.

And also other issues such as the total scriptura and so on, that we have to take all the scriptures.

Again, where is your basis for taking all these scriptures? What scriptures, what all the scriptures are you taking?

What goes into the, you know, what did Jesus give a contents page about which books are going to be the, everything you're going to be, you're going to accept.

So I think that it brings up a lot of questions about the origins of the issue of the Trinity, and it's just very conspicuous to anyone, which

I would say. So you'd say just firstly, there is no Trinitarian conception that obviously springs out of a reading of Jewish, you know, the

Jewish history. But on top of that, for you, there's simply a logical problem of the idea of three gods, or three persons, but one

God. I mean, that for you is essential, you know, whatever interpretation you make of the

New Testament, that's still going to be a problem. Yeah, I mean, I think when the, perhaps when certain

Christians during the history of Christianity encountered, well, they wanted the need to basically say

Jesus is divine, but the problem is it was brought up while he was praying to a father. And so how do you reconcile that?

We want to make him divine, but who's this other person he's praying to? And obviously, I think the

Holy Spirit might have been brought on later on or so, but whatever the case, in order to reconcile these contradictory things, you believe in one

God, because Jesus said, you know, one God, but at the same time you want to make Jesus divine. And I think it's a human phenomenon that you want to make a

God you can see, someone you can personally interact with. For example, in India right now, Sai Baba, who's currently living, is revealed as a

God, as a God incarnate by Hindus. Haile Selassie was revealed as a God by the Rastafarians. And there's been many human beings who've been revealed as God incarnate throughout the history of humanity, from Hercules to Krishna, and even more contemporary ones.

So I would say that the problem that I have is that when looking at the history, or at least just looking at the actual conception, you want to have three things which you want to make into one.

So how do you reconcile this? Well, the Christians came up with an interesting play of words. Instead of saying three

Gods, three Gods in an alliance, they said, no, we'll say one God, but three persons.

But I want to know, and this is something I've read, Augustine's book on the Trinity, and I read a few contemporary explanations of the

Trinity, and I think it doesn't make sense, is what is a person? How do you define these persons?

It's just the name that was brought up. It's a semantical word game to justify three. Whereas if you actually dig into it, when you ask, for example, you say, right, if Jesus is eternal, fine.

Jesus was not created, fine. So he wasn't made by anything. So if he wasn't made by anything, then he's independent, he doesn't need anything, he's not a dependent being like we are.

So if he's not dependent, then what need does he have of the Father? When he prays to the

Father, how does that make sense? I mean, Christians have tried sometimes,

James, to sort of define the Trinity in ways that might be helpful. They've maybe talked about, well, water comes in the form of ice, steam, liquids, or think of a block, you know, which has, in a sense, two -dimensional faces, but as a whole is a three -dimensional object.

I mean, are those helpful, or are they red herrings in some way? No, I don't. Obviously, we believe that God exists in an absolutely unique fashion.

Therefore, any type of analogy to the created order is going to fail at some point. And so in my book,

I have discussed the various failures of the three -leaf clover and all the rest of this stuff that people have attempted to use over time.

Obviously, we believe that God exists in a unique fashion. And again, we come back to the issue of whether this is a divine revelation or whether this is something that man comes to in some rational thought process.

And we need to be consistent. For example, Abdullah just raised, well, how do we know what the scriptures are? Well, how do we know what the

Islamic scriptures are? I mean, we know that Surah Al -Baqarah existed as a separate book in some people's minds, even outside the

Quran in the early years. There are all sorts of questions we can ask about Uthman's revision and all those types of things.

Every religion has to answer those questions. The fact that people ask those questions does not mean there's not an answer to those things.

That's the first thing. Secondly, I said we do have to look at what the New Testament says. And the New Testament writers are monotheists.

They are not saying, well, we have three gods. How do we figure out how to make them one god in any way, shape, or form? The fact that there is one divine name.

We're baptized in a single name. The fact there's one divine name that monotheistic Jews are going to recognize.

In the Old Testament, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the name Yahweh was rendered by the Greek term kurios, which means

Lord. It's interesting to me that that's Jesus' normative term throughout the New Testament. He is kurios, only by the

Holy Spirit can we say Jesus kurios, Jesus is Lord. And so it's not a matter of us trying to quote -unquote figure this out.

We have a divine text. In this divine text, Jesus says, unless you believe that I am, using the very same terminology

Yahweh uses of himself in the Old Testament, you will die in your sins. So it wasn't generations later someone trying to go, well, we want to make

Jesus a god because we want to have a god that we can see. No, they have these inspired texts, and they are attempting to do with them what the faithful Muslim attempts to do with the

Koran. When I interpret the Koran, I try to look at all the Koran has to say. I think it's unfair to pull one part out and say, well,

I'm going to isolate this out. And the Muslim agrees with that, but when it comes to the New Testament, they operate on a different standard.

Instead, when we come to the New Testament, it's very, very clear. John says, in the beginning was the

Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Here you have in three phrases the description of the fact that the

Logos, the Word, who becomes flesh in John 1 .14, has eternally existed. He did not come into existence at a point in time in the past.

Secondly, that there has been an eternal relationship between he and the Father, as John 1 .18 says that God is being spoken of here as the

Father, and that he is as to his nature, deity. Now, if that's in your inspired text, along with the assertion there's only one true

God, then you have to accept what that text says. It's not some, well, we just have to, we want to change things after the revelation has taken place.

This is an inherent part of the revelation itself. There can be no question of that. Before we get a response from Abdullah, if you're listening, you're listening to a discussion on whether the

Christian doctrine of the Trinity leads to polytheism. That's what many Muslims believe, and Abdullah al -Yusufi is one of them.

He's with me here in the studio, along with Christian apologist James White. Don't forget, you can give us your comments on the debate today by emailing unbelievable at premier .org

.uk, or you can phone me, your phone response to this discussion, on 08456 525252, and select option 5.

You can do that whether you're listening live this Saturday afternoon, or you're listening to the podcast. I can pick it up and play it out on next week's programme, and indeed pass on any relevant pieces of information to my guests.

So, let's just get back into this discussion. James is saying, look, we're not trying to make sense of something after the event.

This stuff about the Trinity is inherent in the original stuff. This isn't something that a later council tried to kind of force onto the text in some way.

I mean, what do you make of that? Well, the Bible is not a diary. It's not a personal account of someone thinking, hmm,

I want to go and make three quotes into one. How do I do this? OK, I'll do it like this. No, it's the finished document.

It is the produced work. I mean, and no one's going to say, we're going to put three quotes into one.

They're going to give a spin on it. For example, pro -lifers, no doubt,

I think James would be against their position. They don't call abortion killing of children. They call abortion abortion.

Just like, you know, abortion, choice of the woman, to basically choose what happens to her. What do you mean pro -choice, rather than pro -life?

You said pro -life. Sorry, sorry, pro -choice. So yeah, pro -choice.

So people use euphemisms and word games to change the actual meaning, to give a different spin to what essentially is something else they're doing.

I believe in calling a spade a spade. In terms of the actual text,

I mean, obviously we're not here to say, well, you know, this text, where did it come from, and so on and so forth.

Yes, this question can be asked, and this is a very interesting question, where that can lead. But I think the case is that God gave us a mind, and God is not the author of confusion.

And he gave us a mind to choose between, and be able to kind of tell between falsehood and truth.

So if something doesn't make sense, regardless of which book it comes from, I would say, I mean,

I'm very, I'll say I'm consistent in this. If the Qur 'an says something which is irrational, I'll throw out the Qur 'an, and I'll cease being a Muslim.

I have no compunction about saying this. But likewise, I would like the Christians to approach their Bible in the same way, or their interpretation of the

Bible, or however, or wherever they derive their belief from, I'd like them to approach this, because at the end of the day, there's something that we all agree on, which is that we all have minds, and we all agree, and obviously we can see the universe and existence around us.

So this common language, the universal language of rational thinking which

God has given us, is an enable human beings to determine the truth, and not just blindly accept texts.

What if, you know, if the Harry Potter became forgotten, then 2 ,000 years ago, they came up with a book out of the ground, and someone believes it, without critical reasoning on this.

See, now, what James White might condemn as liberal scholarship is actually just critical reading of the text.

And I think there's something else. James White mentioned that we shouldn't use analogies, we shouldn't compare the divine to any analogy to explain it, and so on, and I agree with this.

Although, you know, in his video on YouTube, Trinity vs. Oneness Debate Part 1, he used an analogy to explain the divine, the

Trinity, by saying that all the humans in the audience, we are all of the same substance, same ouzia, but we are all different persons, hypostasis, different persons.

Now, he used an analogy in that, he did use an analogy in that case, and I would say that that's actually a very interesting analogy, because he's saying that all these people in the audience are all one substance, but different persons.

Well, of course, but there's multiple people in the audience. No doubt the Greek pagan gods are all made of the same substance, but they're all different gods.

So I would say that, you know, it's for reasons like this, which I think the Trinity is able to justify.

You just can't justify it logically, and it, I mean, would you agree there, James, that,

I mean, you've said analogies do break down, because God is unique. Yeah, and that wasn't an analogy I was using on the

Trinity at all. I was, Abdullah has misunderstood me. I was simply illustrating the difference between two terms, and that is being in person.

And I illustrated the fact that we as human beings always differentiate between these terms. We recognize that even inanimate objects have being.

Pick up a rock, toss it at somebody else, that will be empirical proof that a rock has being. But rocks are impersonal.

You can insult a rock all you want. It's not really going to care, because it's not personal. And I was saying we as human beings share the same kind of being.

Our being is limited in time and space. But each one of us is personal, and we differentiate on those levels. I was not in any way describing the

Trinity with that analogy. So that's a misunderstanding. But I am not a rationalist.

I believe that God has given us our minds to think his thoughts after him. I believe that we are to be consistent and all the rest of those things.

But I'm not a rationalist. I do not sit here and say that man's mind is the measure of God's existence.

And I do not believe there's anything irrational in recognizing the difference between being and person.

Your being and my being, we are limited in time and space. Right now, I am seven hours ahead of my family back in Phoenix.

It's very difficult to call home and get the chance to talk with them at the right time. I cannot bilocate between those two locations.

I am limited in time and space. God is not. And while my being is probably only shared by one person, upon what logical or rational basis do we say that God's being, being infinite, cannot be shared by three divine persons fully and completely?

That is an issue of divine revelation. Is it not God's business to reveal to us exactly how much he wants us to know of his divine being?

Deuteronomy 29 .29 says, The things that are revealed belong to us and to our children. The secret things belong to the Lord our

God. I suppose one of your arguments, Abdullah, might be, though, but if God wants to reveal himself to us and wants us to believe in him, why would he do it in a confusing way that we can't grasp with our mind?

I mean, is that what you're getting at? That when you say God is not the author of confusion, this is a confusing thing?

I didn't say we can't grasp it with our mind. I didn't say that. I did not. I want to make sure, because if you're going to answer a question, it needs to be based upon what

I'm saying. I am not saying that we cannot understand the doctrines of Trinity. What I'm saying is that on God's most basic level,

I cannot comprehend how he's eternal. I cannot wrap my mind around timelessness. And if that's the most, and that's something we both agree about God, and if I can't wrap my mind around that, then

I'm certainly not going to demand that the highest level of his revelation about himself, that somehow

I am to derive that solely from something other than divine revelation. We'll get a response from Abdullah in a moment, because we're just coming to the end of this section of the programme.

If you're listening, then do tune in again in just a moment's time, after a short break, and we'll continue discussing the

Trinity and its implications. And don't forget that you can listen back to this programme on the

Premiere website at premiere .org .uk forward slash unbelievable. That'll take you to the

Unbelievable webpage. You can listen back to past programmes there on the archive. You can get the podcast. Do tell your friends about it.

There are many, many people now listening via podcast, so welcome along if you're listening by that medium. And we'll be back in just a short moment.

Thanks, guys. We'll stop recording now. Welcome to Unbelievable on Premiere Christian Radio.

That is what the name of the show is, Unbelievable. And is the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily unbelievable?

Well, that's the way that Abdullah feels. He's our guest on the programme today, and taking, if you like, the

Muslim stance on the doctrine of the Trinity. And our Christian guest is

James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries in the United States. Do check out their website at aomin .org.

That's a -o -m -i -n .org. And you can find out more about Abdullah al -Andalusi at his

YouTube page, if you like, www .youtube .com

forward slash mujtahid2006. Gentlemen, we're going back and forth on these questions about the

Trinity, and whether it was a later, if you like, clarification, in some ways, is what you were arguing,

Abdullah. And you've been saying, James, no, we need to see this as inherent in the earliest texts, that this was something that monotheist

Jewish people believed, as it were. And for you, we need to be very careful about having some idea that the

Trinity is some kind of later development. I think that's sometimes the way it's painted, as this was thrashed out at some kind of later church council, that this is what we believe as a

Christian. Well, like I said in my opening statement, I'm a biblical Trinitarian. As a person who believes in Sola Scriptura, has defended

Sola Scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture. And that's one of the things that's interesting in the Christian -Muslim dialogue, is that we both believe that God has spoken.

In fact, the Quran says that God has sent down books, plural, and that we are to believe in these books, plural.

And so we both believe God has spoken. That's one of the reasons that Abdullah was saying he engages in the secularists and atheists and things like that, that our worldviews coincide at that point.

But obviously, from my perspective, then we need to look at what those texts say. And earlier, Abdullah had been saying, you know, that somehow

Christians are spinning something to make the Trinity work. This language is a part of the original

New Testament itself. In fact, the book of Hebrews clearly written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A .D. 70.

So we're talking within one generation, the time of Christ. Listen to the language it uses. After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors and the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in the

Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he created the world. The Son is the radiance of his glory, the exact representation of his essence, and sustains all things by his powerful word.

I mean, when we're talking about the Greek term there is charakter, from which we get character.

And if you had a signet ring and you would press it into wax, it would leave an exact representation.

That's what the earliest documents are saying about Jesus' relationship with the Father. These are words that could never be said of a mere prophet.

This isn't just some later generation wanting to exalt someone, because we found these in the very words of Jesus.

He says things that no mere prophet could ever say. Well, I mean, to respond specifically to that,

Jesus said, Book of John, I myself can do nothing, as I hear I judge.

No one knows when the day or the hour will come, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. And also, do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the

Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Now, can a

God say this? And I think this is, I mean, and I guess James White's response would be,

Yes, but I'm picking and choosing my text. Well, of course, but all that, I mean, to highlight that point is merely to illustrate the inconsistency within your own book.

And if I was in that position, I wouldn't advertise these contradictions. And I think these issues cast doubt.

But again, outside, you know, just putting the Bible aside for one second. If we were, if I was a soldier on the front line, and I was fighting for a side, and then

I get an order from my general, which tells me to, let's say, kill my own people, shoot my own friends and so on, and then, and bomb my own army.

Now, the order might have come through on my radio or however the orders are received by the soldiers. But I would say, wait a second, hold it a second.

Now, it seems to have come from my HQ. But this doesn't look like something my

HQ would say, saying my commander would say. Likewise, if the Bible or an interpretation of the

Bible is saying something which is against what we know of God, as in, you know, being infinite or powerful or knowledgeable being, not an ignorant being, an all knowledgeable being.

Yeah, Jesus is ignorant about the one fact. So if he's ignorant, then how can he, you know, how can he be

God in this respect? Furthermore, I mean, I think that the basis is what we have to agree on.

James White earlier on said that how can we understand God? You know, God is infinite and timeless, and how can we understand this?

Well, I mean, obviously we can't comprehend what is infinite. Can we comprehend this?

But we understand what it means. Infinite in Latin means not finite. Simple, not finite. The only definition for God is by what he's not.

That's the only definition that we have. Timelessness. Independent, not dependent.

Unlimited, not limited. The only way we can define God is by what he's not. So then if someone says to me, no,

I have this belief that God is limited, finite, in any way, shape or form, and independent.

I say, wait a second, because this contradicts with a fundamental understanding that God is not these things.

The only way we can define him is that he's not these things. So can God be limited and unlimited at the same time?

And that's what you would say a Christian has to believe if they believe Jesus, in his incarnate form, is the

Son of God. Yeah. That's the dilemma. Well, of course, logically, upon what basis do you say that the creator of all things, who himself in his essence is unlimited, cannot, if he so desires, enter into his own creation?

I've never had an answer to that. It's just, well, we just don't believe he can. What is the logical reason? If he created, if he made it, and remember, we're not saying that the essence of God somehow became limited or ceased being eternal.

The Father did not become flesh. The Spirit did not become flesh. The Son becomes flesh.

He enters into human existence. And that's the one speaking when, for a purpose, the time of the coming is not a part of his limited knowledge as the

God -man. That's not the case today. He still remains the God -man, but there was a purpose for that in John chapter 20, when he speaks of God as my

God. Could God speak that way? The God -man can. And upon what basis do we say he cannot?

Each one of those texts that were just cited by Abdullah, if you were to go into the context, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

In John chapter 5, when he says he does what the Father, he speaks with the words the Father has given him, that comes right after.

The fact that Jesus has claimed not only to be Lord of the Sabbath, but to have the exact same right to act on the

Sabbath that God has. And the Jews understood he was making himself equal with God. John chapter 5 is

Jesus' explanation. He's not some renegade deity. He's not a secondary deity. There is perfect harmony between he and the

Father. And so, when we simply ask to be allowed to do what every Muslim demands for the

Quran, that is, allow the book to speak for itself. Read it in its own context.

When you do the same thing for the Christian texts, then this is the teaching. This is why.

What about the context of the other one Abdullah mentioned, which is no one knows the time?

Yeah, I just mentioned that. Okay, sorry. So, you're saying in that context, we see...

In the context of the God -man, when Jesus himself, he lays aside his glory voluntarily.

The exercise of his divine prerogatives, he lays aside. Look at the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2, 5 through 11.

This is one of the fragments of an ancient hymn of the church, which probably comes within ten years of the time of Christ.

And what is that section talking about? It's talking about how Jesus does not consider the equality he has with God the

Father something to be held on to at all costs. But instead, he voluntarily makes himself nothing.

How does he do that? By taking on a human nature and becoming obedient, even to the point of the death on the cross.

And so, here you have a divine person, pre -existing, who is equal with the Father, but does not consider that equality he has with the

Father something to be held on to. But instead, he takes on a true human nature. And the limitations that come from that.

The miracles he does. He does by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. He gives us that example as a perfect man.

But again, when we allow the context of those texts to enter into the picture, and we allow the whole testimony.

I don't demand that a Muslim accepts the modern orientalist views of the

Quran that see it as a compilation of many different works put together. I don't demand that you go, okay,

I'm going to chop up Surah Al -Baqarah into all these different parts, and you can't interpret any of these parts in the light of other parts.

They're going to say, wait a minute, you have to let the Quran speak. You can't just start with that kind of presupposition. I'm looking for consistency on that same level when they start looking at my text, which preceded the

Quran by 600 years. And which, in the Quran, I am told, as one of the Al -Anjeel, the people of the

Gospel, I am told to judge by what is revealed therein. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Well, I mean, my response to that, I'd say, is if people want to discuss the orientalist opinions about the

Quran, then bring it on, really. I mean, I don't care who says it. If it's a liberal or not liberal, let's look at the facts, and if they present some facts, then fine, we'll discuss it.

But in terms of what he said about the Sabbath, you know, Jesus, for example, wouldn't, you know, only

God could break the Sabbath. Well, I mean, even in Islam, there are obligations upon us that we can't break, but there are exceptions to those obligations.

And I think in that case, Jesus was highlighting an exception. You know, for example, as a

Muslim, you know, we can eat pork if that's the only food available to us, and our survival depends on it. So, you know, are we

God? No, we're breaking these rules? No, it's just an exception to the rule. But in terms of what

Jesus was saying that, you know, I guess the gist of what he's saying is that we're putting a limit on God by saying God can't do these things.

But you see, the thing is that why can God do anything? God can do anything because his nature is unlimited.

That's why he can do anything he wishes. But as a Muslim, we say, yes, we say God can do anything, but he is not anything.

He is not finite. That's what I'm saying. You say God's infinite, you're already telling God, so to speak, what he can't do, or what he can't do.

As soon as you call God infinite, you're saying that he slightly can't do. So you're saying that there is logically things

God can't... I mean, some people say don't expect God to make a rock heavier than he can lift, because that's a logically inconsistent thing to ask him to do.

Are you saying the same thing that if you have called God infinite, it's logically inconsistent to ask him to become a finite being?

Well, yeah, I mean, I'd also say that God, obviously, he's infinite. Now, obviously, could he choose to finite himself?

Yes, but then he'd be who would cease to exist, because then what maintains existence is the infinite.

And if God finites himself, it's the same thing as him destroying himself, the same thing as him creating another God, the same thing as...

So this is always the philosophical objection to... Except no one believes it, because Christians are not saying

God became finite. No one has said that. The Father did not become flesh. The Spirit did not become flesh.

There is a... one of three divine persons enters into human flesh by taking on the human nature.

That human nature is finite, yes, but the essence of God does not cease being infinite.

So there's no Christian, at least no knowledgeable Christian, who is saying, oh, yeah, well, God was infinite, now he's become finite.

No, that is not the case. The question is, can he who is infinite enter into human existence, take on a true human nature and live and dwell amongst us?

Even in the Old Testament, did not Yahweh appear multiple times in physical form? Who is Abraham walking with?

It specifically says by the Oaks of Mamre that he met with Jehovah God. I remember doing a debate, an

Easter sort of themed debate between a Christian and a Muslim, and the Muslim was horrified, he found it abhorrent, the idea that God could be said to have died on the cross, which is sort of, in a way, what

Christians say when they say Jesus died on the cross, they say God was in our place on the cross, if you like.

The God -man. The God -man. Now, I mean, do we need to make a distinction here between... I mean, are you trying to say

Jesus was not... we say Jesus was fully God, but in what sense was he also not

God, in the sense that we don't say God died? We say he was fully God and he was fully man.

And obviously, the divine essence cannot cease to exist in any way, shape, or form.

And so what Jesus does voluntarily on the cross is he gives his life as the perfect man, without sin, without any penalty lying upon him.

And he gives his life voluntarily upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin.

Now, when we say that God died, what we're saying, as Acts 20 expresses it, he gave his own blood, because as Philippians 2 says, he took on a true human nature, but without our fallenness.

That's why he's paralleled with Adam as the second Adam, for example, by the Apostle Paul in Romans and Corinthians. And so, we're not saying that God ceased to exist.

I've actually heard people say, well, then who was running the world for the three days? And again, it assumes

Unitarianism. That's one of the biggest problems that we have in this discussion. That's one of the biggest problems that I have as a

Christian apologist dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, one is Pentecostals, is the assumption of Unitarianism rather than the proving of Unitarianism.

They're not recognizing that the Father is not the one who became flesh. The Father was still running the universe.

That was the point, I think Abdullah misunderstood me. I was actually talking about in John 5, 17 -18, when

Jesus said, my Father is working until now, and I too am working. He was claiming the same prerogative that God had to keep the stars spinning in space on the

Sabbath day. And that's why the Jews said, he's calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. That's what was going on there.

And that's what we're saying, is you need to recognize the distinction that we make between Father, Son, and Spirit.

And hence, when we say that Jesus as the God -man died, we're not saying that the Father died.

We're not saying that the Spirit died. There were people in the early church called patripassionists, who denied the doctrine of the

Trinity, and in essence, said that the Father suffered. That's what patripassionism means. That's clearly not what the

New Testament documents are revealing to us. Well, I mean, I would say that in that particular case, when

Jesus said that, you know, God's working, and I too am working, I think that's the same thing as me saying that God is merciful, and I shall show mercy, because God is merciful.

It doesn't mean that God is my Father, and I'm his son, in that sense. I do agree with what

James said, when God didn't change his nature, the Father didn't become flesh. I exactly agree with that statement.

If you're suggesting, Abdullah, that James is somehow interpreting these statements of Jesus in some kind of divine sense, then

I think James's objection, that then why did the Jewish authorities take exception to that, kind of stands.

I mean, would they not have been the first person to see that he was just making sort of some general rabbinic claims or something?

I mean, why did they believe he was making these, if you like, heretical claims to be equal to God?

Well, I think it's the same reason that in the world today, you see all kinds of oppression, and political dissidents being arrested and tortured and so on.

Jesus was a radical, so to speak. He believed in a whole different interpretation of the

Old Testament to what the current understanding of it was. I believe he was trying to reform the understanding and revive the old understanding of Moses and the

Mosaic law, which is what the Jews who have become stuck in very extreme literalist interpretations, you know, were still so narrow not to see.

So they call everything that Jesus said which contradicted their narrow interpretations or literalistic interpretations, they accuse him of blasphemy and heresy.

And you see the like of it today throughout the world in Christian, Muslim, and even Jewish communities of today. The same thing occurs.

Also, I mean, the issue is, I mean, I guess... I mean, what you're saying is Jesus wasn't making the claims that they said he was making, the ones that they basically crucified him for, that he claimed to be

God. I mean, you're saying he didn't make that claim. Well, I mean, if we want to go towards...

If we want to basically take the statements of the enemies of Jesus as proof of what Jesus said, then we might as well go to the

Talmud and Midrash and look what it said about Jesus. You know, it made insults about his mother, it made insults about him.

It said that he's burning in hell, using these very disgusting terms, talking about him. So we have to be consistent on this issue.

If we're going to take the enemies' statements of Jesus, then take all the enemies' statements. There's a problem with that.

The Talmud and Midrash is from two and a half centuries later. The Talmud, six centuries later.

What we're saying is, in this context, when these people come to the conclusion that Jesus is identifying him, he says, here's the words,

John 5, 18, Jesus' response to that is to say,

Again, what human being, knowing our own sin, our own imperfection, can utter the words that Jesus says,

Every word that comes out of my mouth is in perfect harmony with the Father. You to honor me is... Clearly, Jesus does not correct an errant understanding on their part.

In any of these places, in John 8, when Jesus says, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews pick up stones to stone him. Does Jesus say, oh, you just misunderstand. John 10, I and the Father are one.

Pick up stones to stone him. Does he say that you misunderstand me? So that it all ends up coming into, in John chapter 19, when the

Jews say, we have a law, and by this law he must die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God.

That is the testimony, the New Testament documents. We'll get a response from Abdullah. Just, again, a quick chance to say, if you're listening, and you're enjoying this debate, we're really kind of nearing the end of the program, gentlemen, so perhaps

I'll give you that as an indication. You should prepare to sum up your arguments on the program today. Time flies, even in the context of, you know, an hour or more of discussion time.

It's amazing how quickly these things go. But, Abdullah, I mean, as we come to the end of the program, any response, firstly, to what

James was saying just before that? Well, I mean, I think interpreting any book sometimes will depend on the assumptions you make before you enter this book.

Now, obviously, those interpretations he mentioned, there are other ways of looking at them, and I guess we can discuss that all day, but I wanted to focus on the issue of the

Trinity, because I believe that we should look at the concept first to see if it actually is something that God could do or could say about himself, and then we should look into the text and make our further judgments after this.

And the issue of God, as I said, God doesn't change. Even Malachi, in the book of Malachi, agrees with this.

But it's a rational point, wherever it's in the text or not, it's a rational point. God doesn't change. How could

God adopt any nature, adopt a human nature, make a change to his nature, adopt something, make any changes to himself within this, him being eternal and unchanging?

Likewise, there are things which I would say that rationally God couldn't do.

He can't change his nature from infinite to finite and then still be able to be unlimited because he's changed himself.

What makes him with no limits is his nature. And I think even the Old Testament would agree with this rational point, whereby it said that it's impossible for God to lie, for God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man.

And then it goes on. Now, these are all points, which these are rational points, regardless of whether the text says it or not. These are rational points, which

I think every Christian who believes in the Trinity has to ask themselves, that does this

Trinity, does it really come from God? Am I making a mistake here? Because blasphemy and obviously polytheism is a very big sin with God.

And we have to ask ourselves, are we going to be the ones when we go to Jesus on the Day of Judgment and we say, my

Lord, my Lord, I preach in your name. And he says, I know you're not. You see, so, okay, fine, whether he said this or not, from the

Christian perspective, they have to ask themselves this question. Absolutely. Yeah, we need to be responsible for the things we do.

And thank you for joining us on the program today. Final thoughts from yourself, James, as we...

Well, I think it's very important to recognize that when, for example, Malachi tells us that God changes, that doesn't mean that God does not act.

It simply tells us that God's essential essence does not change. And, of course, the doctrine of Trinity is not saying that.

I've already said, we are in no way, shape, or form saying that the infinite ceased being infinite. We are not saying that God ceased to exist after Jesus' death on the cross or anything along those lines.

So those are, quite honestly, misrepresentations of what we believe. Instead, we believe what

Paul said, that the Son eternally existed as the Son, that He did not regard equality with God as something to be held on to at all costs, but He emptied

Himself by taking the form of a slave. There is no logical or rational reason, while you have to say

God does not have that capacity, if He so chose to enter into His own creation so as to bring about His own glory through the redemption of a people, there is no logical or rational reason that can be argued against that.

If, again, what's the foundation? Well, we believe in Revelation. Even Malachi is Revelation. And so you can't say, well, it's just a rational thing.

Well, so is Philippians 2. If Malachi 3 .6 is a rational thing, so is Philippians 2. And it has revealed to us what

God has done in Jesus Christ. That's why I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Thank you, gentlemen, so much for being with me.

Now, if you're being on the program with me today, it was a really interesting discussion. And don't forget, if you'd like to respond, the email address is unbelievable at premier .org

.uk. Okay. Well, that was our discussion for today. Let me tell you what we'll be talking about next week.